Green contradictions and confusions

Mon, 20/05/2013 - 05:00

By RedSquirrels-The Green party has detailed policy on immigration, nationality and population, but does not publicise these on its web site, probably since these are quite as irrational and contradictory as its notorious drugs legalisation policy.

In the early days of the party its policy was explicitly in favour of a reduced population for Britain, but since then there has been an influx of politically-correct ex-Labour leftists, and the Greens policies have become a morass of clichés.

Firstly on migration, there are some sensible aims, e.g., that world regions should be self-reliant and economically self-sufficient, and that this will reduce migration.

However they then trot out clichés about the benefits of "cultural diversity and intercultural awareness" resulting from migration, and state that "richer regions and communities do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges". Contradicting this, they also state that "indigenous peoples" have a "right to restrict inward migration" if their "traditional lifestyle would be adversely affected by in-comers".

But somehow I suspect that we are not considered worthy of protection under this clause ...
They then go on to pledge an amnesty to illegal immigrants and to liberalise immigration policy.

They want nationality to be based upon residence instead of inheritance, and eventually for the concept of nationality to be abolished completely.

They expect an increase in 'environmental migrants', "mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage ..."

So one more spurious justification for immigrants to use to come to Britain!

On population the Green policy notes correctly that the UK consumes more resources than it can supply, and that this causes environmental harm.

They point out the need for "economic and land use policies that are sustainable with a stable or falling population rather than dependent on a continuing influx of, often exploited, labour from elsewhere in the UK or overseas".

These statements are sensible and in agreement with the BNP's own environmental policies, however the Greens then undermine these aims by stating that they want to "work towards a world where people are free to move between countries".

The reality of such a policy would be an even worse flood of 3rd world immigrants, who, once in Britain, would then consume resources at the usual UK level, causing far higher environmental harm and resource use than if they had remained in their own countries.

Like other politically correct leftists, the Greens have tied themselves into knots in order to avoid any hint of criticism of immigration or any support for preservation of British peoples and cultures.

The result is a set of policies which would result in greater environmental harm: population increase through unrestricted immigration, resulting in increased demand for housing and resources, destruction of green space, increased air pollution and demand for road and air travel - all the things which the Greens claim to oppose.

Only the BNP has real environmental policies, which take honest account of the effect of overpopulation. The truth is that the UK population is only increasing because of immigration and the high birth rates of some immigrant groups.

The white British population of England/Wales actually decreased by 600,000 between 2001 and 2011 (ONS survey figures).

Even including Indian and Caribbean people there would still have been a decrease in population over the 10 years.

In this situation there would be a reduced housing problem, lower demand for energy, and generally a more sustainable and environmentally friendly society.